The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
If there's one thing in Football this season that keeps popping-up time-and-time-again, week-after-week, more-so than any other Football-related matter, then it has to be the whole debate about the bog-standard reffereeing descisions that we've seen consistently this season, and how it appears that even the country's top-ref's, including even Uriah Rennie, all need some extra "assistance" using the technology available, in order to get things right so we never see a bad descision like so-many we've seen this season, ever again.
But while anyone - even people who have nothing to do with the sport - can throw good-idea-after-good-idea at you untill there's almost nothing left to be discussed, putting even one of these suggestions into action would be much easier "said" by the Football Association than it would be for them to get it done, properly.
Sure, you may think that bringing in a "3rd-Eye" system with a third or fourth-official in the stands somewhere watching the action as it happens, and replaying back any uncertainties the refferee may have through the art of modern technology (a TV) is a good idea that could take-off quite easily, and have a great effect on the future's game. But you have to consider the bad-points of each suggestion and idea, also. And even a smart-sounding and perhaps fool-proof system like this one may seem like it could never fail, there will always be down-sides that could affect the game quite severely.
Within the average game of Football today, even at the highest levels of proffesional-football, each-and-every game is more-than littered with fouls and bad-challenges, with the majority of those followed-up with a booking, or even a red card for the player with nothing but 'aggression' in his play. And even with all this going on, even in a goal-less-draw, the games seem to flow well and consistently throughout the 90-minute periods, just because there is nothing "major" there to break-up the play. But if a "3rd-Eye" system was to be introduced, imagine how long we would have to wait for that offiicial sat infront of his TV screen to signal to the refferee his final, 100%-accurate descision... Sure, in some cases it may only take a quick second-or-two, but in some cases (perhaps many-other) there may be the bare-minimal of contact between the 2 opposing players, or because of the specific camera-angles, you may not be able to really get that great a view. Not only would this take longer for a final descision to be made, but it'd also give the ref' a tougher job of keeping all those aggressive players 'calm', while others begin to lose the excitement they just felt bursting past the 'keeper, one-on-one, before being allegedly brought down; while he awaits to see if the penalty is given, or not.
It's a good idea to bring 'video evidence' into out live matches, but this isn't Rugby, and it certainly ain't no game of Cricket. Those are sports which this kind of system can be integrated into with ease, unlike the fast-pace of modern-day Football.
Another good idea I've heard of is that we should have 2 more officials on the pitch; as extra linesman for running up-and-down those 2 quarters of the pitch the ref's assistants cannot cover by themselves, and therefore miss-out on the possibillity of getting some better overall views of what's going on within a specific area of the pitch. It may not seem quite as impressive as the "3rd-Eye" idea, but it'd be a lot cheaper to set-up, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too-hard to find even more young, up-and-coming officials to fill-in and assist the "Men in Black" in their job.
But linesmen are today being blamed for getting descisions wrong. Do we really need 2 more men around the pitch to take the blame and help increase the pressure on today's under-fire refferees, when we're trying to reduce it?
By all means, they could well get a better view of all things as a unit of 5. And it may well be a more efficient-to-set-up solution than the one mentioned above. But would they really be able to tell us EXACTLY what's going on in a crowded Penalty box with players from both sides scrapping for the ball like savage beasts??
Again, this idea seems quite promising at first. But the bad-points simply cannot be ignored here. It could still go oh-so-wrong.
But if "more linesmen" aren't the answer then what about sticking another man behind the goal, free to run along the goal-line, with potentially a great view of what really goes on in the 18-yard box, as it happens?
Without a doubt, they'd be able to give a highly-accurate verdict on whether-or-not an off-the-line-clearence really DID prevent the ball from crossing the line. And they'd probably also be able to tell the refferee just how-much of the Ruud van Nistelrooy that defender or goalkeeper really did get, compared to the amount he got on the ball.
But again, it's only the human-eye; something perhaps not always as accurate as the type of response in-game video-replay analysis could give us.
I like the idea of having more men around the pitch, to cover those more important areas. But even so, I can't help but feel we should be moving-on from this age-old structure, and using the technology we have available to us now - just like Andy Gray does on SkySports, every Monday-night.
If we really wanted an idea like the one above to work then, seriously, you'd need some kind of robot-camera racing from one-side with one corner-flag, to the other flag on the other side of the goal. And I can bet that would cost a hell-of-a-lot-more than what it would to bring in more "people power"! Just how many lower-league clubs would be able to afford all this - especially with this on-going "financial crisis" that seems like it may never end??
We have the technology, we have the people.
Trouble is that it'd basically just ruin the exciting flow and pace of the modern-game, and perhaps even those nail-biting moments during stoppage-time that leaves every football watching slipping off the edge of their seats.
Who knows what something like the "3rd-Eye" system could do to Premiership Football in the future, along with the expectations of top-class football, and all else that comes with it??!
I hate to say it, but I just don't think the refferees can be helped here...!
Not yet, anyway.
We need to keep working on a solution, untill we get it right -- and fast, too.
Any ideas.... Anyone???
But while anyone - even people who have nothing to do with the sport - can throw good-idea-after-good-idea at you untill there's almost nothing left to be discussed, putting even one of these suggestions into action would be much easier "said" by the Football Association than it would be for them to get it done, properly.
Sure, you may think that bringing in a "3rd-Eye" system with a third or fourth-official in the stands somewhere watching the action as it happens, and replaying back any uncertainties the refferee may have through the art of modern technology (a TV) is a good idea that could take-off quite easily, and have a great effect on the future's game. But you have to consider the bad-points of each suggestion and idea, also. And even a smart-sounding and perhaps fool-proof system like this one may seem like it could never fail, there will always be down-sides that could affect the game quite severely.
Within the average game of Football today, even at the highest levels of proffesional-football, each-and-every game is more-than littered with fouls and bad-challenges, with the majority of those followed-up with a booking, or even a red card for the player with nothing but 'aggression' in his play. And even with all this going on, even in a goal-less-draw, the games seem to flow well and consistently throughout the 90-minute periods, just because there is nothing "major" there to break-up the play. But if a "3rd-Eye" system was to be introduced, imagine how long we would have to wait for that offiicial sat infront of his TV screen to signal to the refferee his final, 100%-accurate descision... Sure, in some cases it may only take a quick second-or-two, but in some cases (perhaps many-other) there may be the bare-minimal of contact between the 2 opposing players, or because of the specific camera-angles, you may not be able to really get that great a view. Not only would this take longer for a final descision to be made, but it'd also give the ref' a tougher job of keeping all those aggressive players 'calm', while others begin to lose the excitement they just felt bursting past the 'keeper, one-on-one, before being allegedly brought down; while he awaits to see if the penalty is given, or not.
It's a good idea to bring 'video evidence' into out live matches, but this isn't Rugby, and it certainly ain't no game of Cricket. Those are sports which this kind of system can be integrated into with ease, unlike the fast-pace of modern-day Football.
Another good idea I've heard of is that we should have 2 more officials on the pitch; as extra linesman for running up-and-down those 2 quarters of the pitch the ref's assistants cannot cover by themselves, and therefore miss-out on the possibillity of getting some better overall views of what's going on within a specific area of the pitch. It may not seem quite as impressive as the "3rd-Eye" idea, but it'd be a lot cheaper to set-up, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too-hard to find even more young, up-and-coming officials to fill-in and assist the "Men in Black" in their job.
But linesmen are today being blamed for getting descisions wrong. Do we really need 2 more men around the pitch to take the blame and help increase the pressure on today's under-fire refferees, when we're trying to reduce it?
By all means, they could well get a better view of all things as a unit of 5. And it may well be a more efficient-to-set-up solution than the one mentioned above. But would they really be able to tell us EXACTLY what's going on in a crowded Penalty box with players from both sides scrapping for the ball like savage beasts??
Again, this idea seems quite promising at first. But the bad-points simply cannot be ignored here. It could still go oh-so-wrong.
But if "more linesmen" aren't the answer then what about sticking another man behind the goal, free to run along the goal-line, with potentially a great view of what really goes on in the 18-yard box, as it happens?
Without a doubt, they'd be able to give a highly-accurate verdict on whether-or-not an off-the-line-clearence really DID prevent the ball from crossing the line. And they'd probably also be able to tell the refferee just how-much of the Ruud van Nistelrooy that defender or goalkeeper really did get, compared to the amount he got on the ball.
But again, it's only the human-eye; something perhaps not always as accurate as the type of response in-game video-replay analysis could give us.
I like the idea of having more men around the pitch, to cover those more important areas. But even so, I can't help but feel we should be moving-on from this age-old structure, and using the technology we have available to us now - just like Andy Gray does on SkySports, every Monday-night.
If we really wanted an idea like the one above to work then, seriously, you'd need some kind of robot-camera racing from one-side with one corner-flag, to the other flag on the other side of the goal. And I can bet that would cost a hell-of-a-lot-more than what it would to bring in more "people power"! Just how many lower-league clubs would be able to afford all this - especially with this on-going "financial crisis" that seems like it may never end??
We have the technology, we have the people.
Trouble is that it'd basically just ruin the exciting flow and pace of the modern-game, and perhaps even those nail-biting moments during stoppage-time that leaves every football watching slipping off the edge of their seats.
Who knows what something like the "3rd-Eye" system could do to Premiership Football in the future, along with the expectations of top-class football, and all else that comes with it??!
I hate to say it, but I just don't think the refferees can be helped here...!
Not yet, anyway.
We need to keep working on a solution, untill we get it right -- and fast, too.
Any ideas.... Anyone???
Page:
AfroJoe wrote:
> I don't really think video evidence would do much for the game.
>
> It would ruin it a little - there would be so many stoppages, and the
> game would turn into something like US Footy. :-D
Not so, I studied this possibility for an Exam whilst at school, and it doesn't slow rugby down too much. What slows our game down is the pansys that dive whenever someone comes within 5ft of them and the ball. Besides video footage wouldn't be used for every single foul, or every single offside...just those that that the ref is unsure about. Should he give a red card, was it a dive for a penalty, did the ball cross the line.
The problem is with those that complain that bringing in new technology would spoil or slow the game down, yet these are the first people to jump on a referees back if a decision doesn't go their teams way!
> I don't really think video evidence would do much for the game.
>
> It would ruin it a little - there would be so many stoppages, and the
> game would turn into something like US Footy. :-D
Not so, I studied this possibility for an Exam whilst at school, and it doesn't slow rugby down too much. What slows our game down is the pansys that dive whenever someone comes within 5ft of them and the ball. Besides video footage wouldn't be used for every single foul, or every single offside...just those that that the ref is unsure about. Should he give a red card, was it a dive for a penalty, did the ball cross the line.
The problem is with those that complain that bringing in new technology would spoil or slow the game down, yet these are the first people to jump on a referees back if a decision doesn't go their teams way!
Cheers guys, and SR! :D
And Foreman, you STILL spell my name wrong! :P
S-O-L-S-K-J-A-E-R
Or just call me Olly, if that's easier. :)
And Foreman, you STILL spell my name wrong! :P
S-O-L-S-K-J-A-E-R
Or just call me Olly, if that's easier. :)
Yeah, Congrats Solsjkaer
Congrats on GAD win Solskjaer
Foreman wrote:
> Maybe they should have two refs. One for one half of the pitch, and
> the other ref for the other end.
I don't think that this would work because the referees may disagree on things and one ref may be more lenient than the other. If you are in the half with the lenient ref and you foul someone you might only give away a free kick, but in the other half with the stricter ref, you could get booked or sent off. Because of this, most of the play would happen in one half as you would be more likely to be booked in the other half.
> Maybe they should have two refs. One for one half of the pitch, and
> the other ref for the other end.
I don't think that this would work because the referees may disagree on things and one ref may be more lenient than the other. If you are in the half with the lenient ref and you foul someone you might only give away a free kick, but in the other half with the stricter ref, you could get booked or sent off. Because of this, most of the play would happen in one half as you would be more likely to be booked in the other half.
They could just clone Pierre Luigi Colina and use one for each game.
Sorted. :-)
Sorted. :-)
I've heard that 'one-ref'-in-each-half' idea before.
But would it really be such a good thing?
It's bad enough now with just one refferee on the pitch, getting blamed for everything he cannot see due to the increasing pace of Premiership football these days. With one ref' in each half, there'd only be twice the number of people for the fans and the media to blame - not helping the refferees and their reputations at all.
And anyway, most ref's are reasonabley fit enough to be near-enough to the ball, all-the-time, no matter where it is on the pitch. So, having a ref' near the action isn't really a problem.
And I'm surprised to see that video evidence isn't already being used to assist the ref's in a descision over whether the ball did cross-the-line, or not. But again, that could actually take up quite a bit of time if it is very "marginal", where they may have to assess the stuation over-and-over before they get it right.
And what if they decided it wasn't a goal?
The ref's would probably still look like fools for almost getting it wrong, just like now. And who would get possesion of the ball, next?? A new kick-off, even though it WASN'T a goal? Or perhaps a drop-ball on the goal-line (heh!)??
I don't see how those idiots at the FA are ever gonna sort this out when they can barely even get this Wemblye project going!
But would it really be such a good thing?
It's bad enough now with just one refferee on the pitch, getting blamed for everything he cannot see due to the increasing pace of Premiership football these days. With one ref' in each half, there'd only be twice the number of people for the fans and the media to blame - not helping the refferees and their reputations at all.
And anyway, most ref's are reasonabley fit enough to be near-enough to the ball, all-the-time, no matter where it is on the pitch. So, having a ref' near the action isn't really a problem.
And I'm surprised to see that video evidence isn't already being used to assist the ref's in a descision over whether the ball did cross-the-line, or not. But again, that could actually take up quite a bit of time if it is very "marginal", where they may have to assess the stuation over-and-over before they get it right.
And what if they decided it wasn't a goal?
The ref's would probably still look like fools for almost getting it wrong, just like now. And who would get possesion of the ball, next?? A new kick-off, even though it WASN'T a goal? Or perhaps a drop-ball on the goal-line (heh!)??
I don't see how those idiots at the FA are ever gonna sort this out when they can barely even get this Wemblye project going!
I'm glad they don't have replays...
If anybody had videoed me getting smashed in the face while refereeing on U13 match, I'd have to hunt them down!
Still, the ball bounced off my head and rolled about 30 Yds off the pitch!
If anybody had videoed me getting smashed in the face while refereeing on U13 match, I'd have to hunt them down!
Still, the ball bounced off my head and rolled about 30 Yds off the pitch!
What about people standing behind the goals, to see whether the ball crosses over line for a goal, or staning over by the corner flags?
Maybe they should have two refs. One for one half of the pitch, and the other ref for the other end.
It's hard to say what to do, as it could ruin football altogether. But I agree that something has to be done about this.
Maybe they should have two refs. One for one half of the pitch, and the other ref for the other end.
It's hard to say what to do, as it could ruin football altogether. But I agree that something has to be done about this.
Like AJ said it would slow it down too much.
They could use something similar to the rugby system in that another official has access to video footage there and then and makes decisions on major decisions such as goals and dangerous play.
Silly things aren't worth it and it could lead to the standard of refs dropping as they can rely more on the tv evidence.
They could use something similar to the rugby system in that another official has access to video footage there and then and makes decisions on major decisions such as goals and dangerous play.
Silly things aren't worth it and it could lead to the standard of refs dropping as they can rely more on the tv evidence.
Page: